BALWANT SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER TAXATION PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners impugn the action of the respondent authorities in transferring urban evacuee land in favour of private respondents through negotiated sales. The brief background of the case is as follows :-- Prior to the framing of the rules for the disposal of urban evacuee agricultural land on Nov. 26, 1960, the respondent authorities put to auction such evacuee lands in accordance with certain policy decisions and press notes. Private respondents were the successful auction purchasers in those auctions. Later these sales were successfully challenged by Balwant Singh, petitioner No. 1 though Civil Writ Petition No. 699 of 1960 and this Court vide its judgment dated Mar. 1, 1961 held that "the press notes and proceedings taken under then including the sale of the property in favour of respondent No. 4 must be and are hereby quashed and an appropriate writ will issue to that effect. The Government will, however, be at liberty to take fresh proceeding under the newly framed rules referred to above. " Ass a result of this judgment the respondent authorities held all the sales made in pursuance of the press notes referred to above as void ab initio and non est, and took a policy decision contained in letters dated Mar. 10, 1961 and pr. 15, 1961 (Annexures 'd and E' respectively ). Vide Annexure 'd', the Regional Settlement Commissioner pointed out to the Chief Settlement Commissioner that some of the auction purchasers (hereinafter refereed to as the defeated auction after referred to as the defeated auction purchasers) who had purchased lands in auctions held in accordance with the press notes issued earlier met the Rehabilitation Minister and pointed out that since the purchase of land by them, they had entered into various transactions and commitments with regard to those lands and with the cancellation of those sales in the light of the High Court judgment in Civil Writ No. 609 (supra), they had been landed in a precarious situation and the lands which are found surplus after meeting the clams of the lessees and sub-lessees under the new rules which entitled them (lessees and sub-lessees) to purchase land in their occupation to the extent of the value of Rs. 15,000/- should be transferred in their favour. In reply to this letter, the Chief Settlement Commissioner communicated vide Annexure 'e' as follows :-

(2.) THE challenge on behalf of the petitioners who admittedly were lessees or sub-lessees of the land in question and have been allowed to purchase land only to the extent of the value of Rs. 15,000/- in accordance with R. 34, (d) of the abovesaid Rules is that firstly R. 87 is violative of the provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India as it confers unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary powers on the Chief Settlement Commissioner to transfer any evacuee a land through auction or by inviting tenders or in any other manner a she may by general or special order direct and secondly the abovenoted respondent were not entitled to get this land through negotiated sales for the reason that earlier sales in their favour had been held to be void and non est by this Court and the present sales in their favour would virtually amount to by-passing the order of this Court. The case on behalf of the private respondents besides supporting the vires of R. 87 is that the Chief Settlement Commissioner was well within his right to direct vide Annexure 'e' that the defeated auction purchasers be transferred lands after meeting the claims of the lessees and the sub-lessees in accordance with R. 87 of the Rules and the present sales are unassailable. . It is further maintained on their behalf that the instructions have been issued for justifiable reasons as the respondent authorities realised their mistake in landing these defeated auction purchasers in the situation in which they had been landed on account of the illegal press notes and the action taken thereunder by them.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length, I do not find any merit in either of the above noted two merit in either of the above noted two contentions. So far as the challenge the vires of R. 87 is concerned, the same has essentially to be repelled in the light of the observations of their Lordship of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal AIR 1972 SC 1816, wherein after considering the implications of S. 29 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915, which too provided for the grant of exclusive of country liquor sale by calling tenders or by auction or otherwise as the State Government may by general or special order direct, observed thus (at. p. 1822):--